BitchX

BitchX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. This software is clearly not notable. Yes, there are three "references" cited, but please do not be fooled. They are all passing mentions of the product about how easily exploited it is. And by passing I mean two sentences a pop with exception to the third "source" which is really just a security bulletin (email) from the Slackware Security Team. [1] Fail, fail, fail. JBsupreme (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed, I passed on nominating this earlier, but since nominated, it should go. Miami33139 (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - (A7) article does not assert notability. Failing that, it doesn't pass WP:N due to not establishing notability with multiple significant secondary sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with caveat: I am not a tech guru, but wikipedia is full of similar articles about IRC clients, bitorrent clients, etc., so consensus seems to be clear that such articles should exist. (Just look at Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients and the vast number of blue links in it, that took serious geek time to prepare). And I did some searching and found numerous references to this being a popular linux IRC client, which I added to article--so A7 Speedy is not appropriate--and that seems notable in terms of these kinds of articles. --Milowent (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these client articles are being looked at for notability claims. They might not be here next week which makes a thin thread to hang their existence on. There is no functioning definition of notable for software, which means every one of them ends up at AfD, and usually decided based on a diversion between claims of non-notable and claims of ILIKEIT. What you have said is a valid point for discussion, but the existence of similar articles is being contested individually, but also en-masse. Does this article, independently, pass the notability criteria for inclusion? Miami33139 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on multiple sources citing this client as one of the most popular IRC clients, I'd say yes.--Milowent (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A7 is completely inappropriate for this one. There are six pages on google scholar for this, which is good enough for me. I (surprisingly) did not find a good article that was devoted to the topic of only this program, but this is not our standard. There is a lot of non-exclusive coverage in the google news and google books searches. The program has ranked in multiple readers' choice awards for Linux Magazine. --Karnesky (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep CNN said it was a popular one for Linux. What's wrong with all the other references? A lot of people use this, and thus it should be covered. Dream Focus 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Solid references, historically valueable as BitchX overtook ircII as the most popular Linux IRC client in the 90s, there even was a newsgroup alt.irc.bitchx.[2] Nominator failed to familiarise with the subject. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • omgz, there was an alt. usenet group in the 90s? That is an amazing claim to notability. Everyone who used Usenet in the 90s surely recognizes the importance of a piece of software having a dedicated group in alt.* Miami33139 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]